Oil hits $118/barrel
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
"Oil prices rose Tuesday (4/22/08) to a all-time highs above $118 a
barrel on concerns over supplies from some key producers."
"In Mexico, oil production slipped 7.8 percent in the first quarter to
2.91 million barrels a day as output at the country's traditional oil
fields wanes, state oil company Petroleos Mexicanos said. In Scotland,
workers at Ineos PLC's 196,000 barrel-a-day Grangemouth refinery and
petrochemical plant have threatened to strike for 48 hours from April
27 over changes to an employee pension plan. Problems continue in
Nigeria, whose particular oil is desired by US users for the summer
driving season. Russia, the largest non-OPEC producer, will produce
less this year than the year before. "
"China's oil demand leapt 8 percent in March from a year ago, the
fastest rate in 19 months as refiners boosted imports ahead of the
Olympics."
For full articles and story details please see:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Oil-Prices.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=4699849
These issues are complex, as reading both the above articles will
show. How much of the price records are because of actual high
demand, supply shortage, fear of the future, foreign exchange rates,
or plain old fashioned investor speculation is not clear.
The rapid rise every day suggests prices are unnaturally high and will
make some recovery. BUT, a recovery will probably be just a few
dollars, not back down to $80 a barrel. That is, even if oil goes
"back down" to say $100/barrel, it still will be very expensive.
That translates to very high petroleum product prices for the U.S.,
and permanent high prices for motor fuel (and lubbricants).
There were other articles on those news web sites on how consumers are
dealing with the high price of gasoline.
John Lansford
Within a year or so we could be thinking "wow, those were the good
days when oil was $118/barrel", too.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/WhyOilCouldHit180DollarsABarrel.aspx
Gasoline at $6/gallon will cripple this country.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
Rick Powell
>
> Gasoline at $6/gallon will cripple this country.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would be painful but not debilitating. And it would spur
efficiency, new sources of oil which become economic at that price,
and alternative energy and propulsion which also would be very
attractive at $6 gas. And it would be great if you own stock in CSX,
NS, BNSF or UP. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we be a
bunch of inventive mothers. The "Manhattan Project of Energy"
everyone's been talking about would likely happen.
RP
brad...@msn.com
>
> Gasoline at $6/gallon will cripple this country.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
This gentleman at Business Week begs to differ:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
Pay attention to the $250 billion thrown at oil/gas futures last year,
compared to $9 billion in 2000. Now are you sure this is about supply
fundamentals?
Steve Sobol
> It would be painful but not debilitating. And it would spur
> efficiency
That would require people to be unselfish and somewhat intelligent. Just
yesterday I was in front of my toddler's day care, about to go in, and there
was a guy across the street talking about how he Just Couldn't Give Up His
Truck. Looked way too fancy to be a work truck...
Many of these people are the same whiners who will complain about gas prices,
but... they can't get rid of the 10 MPG gas guzzler? COME ON!!
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
necromancer
<sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>On 2008-04-22, Rick Powell <rkpo...@ivnet.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be painful but not debilitating. And it would spur
>> efficiency
>
>That would require people to be unselfish and somewhat intelligent. Just
>yesterday I was in front of my toddler's day care, about to go in, and there
>was a guy across the street talking about how he Just Couldn't Give Up His
>Truck. Looked way too fancy to be a work truck...
That's the beauty of how our economy works. The oil companies/gas
stations are willing to sell the gas at the price posted on the pump
and the consumer is willing to pay that price - regardless about all
the bitching and whining that people like the guy at the day care are
doing, as long as he is still buying the gas for his truck he is
willing to pay the oil companies' price. And as long as people like
the guy with the truck are willing to pay the price, the oil
companies/gas station will keep charging what they are charging and
raise/lower the price as they see fit.
>Many of these people are the same whiners who will complain about gas prices,
>but... they can't get rid of the 10 MPG gas guzzler? COME ON!!
And how much do you want to bet that that trip to the day care center
was the only trip he was making? And then later he will make other
single destination trips (such as to the grocery store (probablly for
only 1 or 2 items) to the health club or some other place) after he
drops the kid at home?
Sorry if I seem so callous and uncaring, but people who continue to
drive unnecessairly large vehicles (and to drive unnecessary miles)
and then whine about the price of gas get no sympathy from me.
--
I am necromancer and I approved this poast.
brad...@msn.com
Never underestimate the ability of the average American to act as
though intellectual consistency and "selflessness" (as defined by
their betters) is some foreign standard that never applies to them.
necromancer
>
>This gentleman at Business Week begs to differ:
>
>Pay attention to the $250 billion thrown at oil/gas futures last year,
>compared to $9 billion in 2000. Now are you sure this is about supply
>fundamentals?
Inetersting article. IIRC, someone in this group the other day was
saying that some refineries out west were cutting back production
because their storage tanks were full......
Oh, well, only 272 more days of shrub and his crap.....
Rick Powell
At SOME price people will start cutting back on travel, or not cutting
back but looking at more efficient alternatives to get from pt A to pt
B. And you are correct, for some the tipping point may be further to
the right than others. For the 20% of sales that have switched from
SUVs to something more economical, those buyers' tipping point has
been reached. For the guy who keeps on filling the Hummer tank with
$70 of gas each day for his daily commute, his tipping point hasn't
been reached, even as we snicker.
Every 50c increase in the price of gas will tip more things over. We
are just at the head end of a chain reaction, and will see lots of
expected and unexpected twists and turns before this is over with.
RP
Steve Sobol
> That's the beauty of how our economy works. The oil companies/gas
> stations are willing to sell the gas at the price posted on the pump
> and the consumer is willing to pay that price - regardless about all
> the bitching and whining
Nail, head, direct hit! It is capitalism at work. And actually, I have
no problem with that. My problem is with the idiots who refuse to
change their habits -- the consumers that continue to use outrageous
amounts of gas. If we'd pushed for real fuel economy improvements, if
we'd pushed for alternative fuels 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the
ridiculous situation where manufacturers are actually crowing about 35
MPG highway and people are expected to get excited. Screw that! My
2003 Ford Focus ZX5 already gets 31-32 MPG highway and it has 100,000
miles on the odometer. I'm supposed to get all fired up about 35? Bah.
>>Many of these people are the same whiners who will complain about gas prices,
>>but... they can't get rid of the 10 MPG gas guzzler? COME ON!!
>
> And how much do you want to bet that that trip to the day care center
> was the only trip he was making? And then later he will make other
> single destination trips (such as to the grocery store (probablly for
> only 1 or 2 items) to the health club or some other place) after he
> drops the kid at home?
No, I was at the day care, it's run out of someone's house, and this was a
neighbor. :) He was already home. Point well taken, though.
> Sorry if I seem so callous and uncaring, but people who continue to
> drive unnecessairly large vehicles (and to drive unnecessary miles)
> and then whine about the price of gas get no sympathy from me.
I'm sorry, were you expecting me to argue with you? :)
Rick Powell
> Here's what I wanna know: what has the price of oil been in terms of
> the price of gold over the last, say, 5 or 10 years? In other words,
> has the number of ounces of gold that would have been required to
> purchase one gallon of gasoline changed significantly? Or is most of
> this price spike simply due to the weak dollar/
> --
> Proud to be a wreckless driver.
Let's go 10 years, Jan to Jan on gas. Avg, all grades. From EIA:
1998 1.148
1999 .977
2000 1.312
2001 1.446
2002 1.152
2003 1.487
2004 1.552
2005 1.824
2006 2.281
2007 2.382
2008 3.159
BTW, last time it was under $2 was a short 3 years ago, in Feb 2005.
London Gold in US$ from kitco.com. Jan to Jan, 1st day of trading.
1998 285
1999 287
2000 282
2001 271
2002 278
2003 344
2004 416
2005 428
2006 530
2007 640
2008 843
Tracks pretty well, don't it?
RP
John Lansford
Everyone was saying that $3/gallon gas would cause people to
drastically change their driving habits. It didn't happen. Now the
threshold appears to be when (not if) gas passes $5/gallon.
For some people there is no "cutting back"; they've already reached
the point where they can't cut back any more. If you're one of those
people and are the primary wage earner in your family, and barely
getting by while gas (and food, and everything else) keeps going up,
what do you do?
John Lansford
>This gentleman at Business Week begs to differ:
>http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
>
>Pay attention to the $250 billion thrown at oil/gas futures last year,
>compared to $9 billion in 2000. Now are you sure this is about supply
>fundamentals?
How much of that money was used for exploiting new oil fields? How
much of that money was spent in Russia, Brazil or one of the other
sites mentioned in my article? We know where the oil is but getting
it is going to be VERY expensive and it's going to take a long time.
That's why the article I listed points out that the next two years is
going to be rough; if they started building RIGHT NOW in those fields,
it would still be years before it made an impact.
Rick Powell
I would not be surprised if the federal government is considering a
"gas stamp" program, similar to the food stamp program, where people
below a certain economic threshhold and without other transit options
are allowed to purchase gasoline at a discount. I'm surprised we
haven't heard something from one of the 3 presidential candidates
yet. The gas tax holidays, etc. we have heard of so far are not
sufficiently targeted at the working poor, IMHO.
RP
Michael D. Adams
> That would require people to be unselfish and somewhat intelligent. Just
> yesterday I was in front of my toddler's day care, about to go in, and there
> was a guy across the street talking about how he Just Couldn't Give Up His
> Truck. Looked way too fancy to be a work truck...
>
> Many of these people are the same whiners who will complain about gas prices,
> but... they can't get rid of the 10 MPG gas guzzler? COME ON!!
Although it's probably not the case in the example you mentioned, it's
probably worth noting that for a few of us, the equation is a bit more
complicated.
I drive a 10-year-old Cherokee, which gets lousy mileage. I'm not a fan
of the high gas prices either, and I have considered changing to a more
efficient vehicle.
However, the fact of the matter is that my Cherokee is mine, free and
clear. Changing to a more efficient vehicle would require buying
another vehicle, and that tends to affect the equation quite a bit. If
it weren't for special needs (my wife's disabled, which impacts our
choice in vehicle), we might be getting close to break-even on the
"keep" versus "buy a more efficient vehicle" scale, depending on what
assumptions you make about hidden costs, etc.
However, my Cherokee should have another 150-250k miles left in it.
Presumably if I wait a little bit longer, even more efficient choices of
vehicles which fit my family's needs will come onto the market. And in
the meantime, I can try to keep my trips as efficient as possible (given
that I'm driving a vehicle with all the aerodynamics of a brick).
Besides, if one were to buy into the hype of measuring carbon footprints
and buying carbon offsets, it's also worth keeping in mind that cars
make their largest impact in carbon consumption at time of manufacture.
I recently had fun debating a rabid environmentalist over my choice in
vehicle while in a parking lot by pointing out that my buying a new car
could be seen as being more damaging to the environment than my getting
as much out of my guzzler as possible.
--
Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com
Michael D. Adams
> How much of that money was used for exploiting new oil fields? How
> much of that money was spent in Russia, Brazil or one of the other
> sites mentioned in my article?
It's a rather complex puzzle, actually. While a nontrivial part of the
difference is capital investment for future production, you can't
discount a bit of a bubble forming with speculators gambling on
contango, and the effects of that casino game on oil prices.
Also, it's worth remembering that looking at oil and gas prices over any
length of time on a dollar basis is a little misleading, by virtue of
how much the value of the dollar relative to other currencies has
fallen. If you were doing price or investment comparisons on a Euro
basis over recent years, the picture would look significantly different.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Everyone was saying that $3/gallon gas would cause people to
> drastically change their driving habits. It didn't happen. Now the
> threshold appears to be when (not if) gas passes $5/gallon.
"Thresholds" are a broad swath of gray, not a sharp cliff. Consumers
do not suddenly change their habits, nor do they do so all at once.
First off, consumers will wait to see if the high prices are permanent
or just a temporary upward spike before they do anything.
Secondly, they will gradually change their habits, doing the easiest
things first. It is relatively easy to plan driving trips better,
tires properly inflated, air filters clean, etc. (I suggest if every
motorist just checked their tires and made them hard we'd save a few
consumption percentage points right there; I know from myself soft
tires greatly increases fuel consumption and wrecks the tire.) I
think as fuel prices keep increasing we'll see consumers making more
of these relatively easy changes.
Third will be tougher changes, such as switching to mass transit or a
car pool if possible. Kids might start riding the school bus again
instead of drving themselves to school. Some discretionary trips will
be cancelled.
The highest level of changes will take time to occur because they are
expensive. People owning a gas guzzler SUV or pickup (as so many do)
usually can't trade them in for a Civic or Corolla without taking a
big loss. People who live in a remote location forcing long drives to
work and shopping can't simply sell their house and move closer. If
fuel prices remain high over time, we will see adjustments, as we saw
cars downsized in the 1970-80s.
Cars were upsized in the 1990s as people got used to the fuel prices
of that era. My current car (2000) is bigger and heavier, including
bigger tires than the same make/model it replaced (1986), and I get
less MPG accordingly.
> For some people there is no "cutting back"; they've already reached
> the point where they can't cut back any more. If you're one of those
> people and are the primary wage earner in your family, and barely
> getting by while gas (and food, and everything else) keeps going up,
> what do you do?
A fact of life is changing economic times. There are always people
living right on the margin, and changing times, whatever the reason,
will hurt them.
But many people do have some discretionary choices; there are a heck
of a lot of motorists with a big fat SUV or pickup that they don't
need at all and could get along quite fine with a much smaller
vehicle. A nice sedan is very comfortable and much more fuel
efficient than even light SUVs.
Historically Americans always liked big fat heavy gas guzzler
vehicles. As the other poster said, that's fine, but you gotta pay
for it. We're not in the 1950s anymore where they hit the ground with
a stake in Texas or Calif and got a gusher at 15c/barrel.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> This gentleman at Business Week begs to differ:http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_94556...
>
> Pay attention to the $250 billion thrown at oil/gas futures last year,
> compared to $9 billion in 2000. Now are you sure this is about supply
> fundamentals?
If all the speculators in it just for the money suddenly left the oil
market, how much would the price drop? I would guess perhaps down $20/
bbl. That means we'd still be at $100/bbl, still very expensive.
Remember, it wasn't long ago we thought $80/bbl was outrageous.
As stated, the issues are very complex. While speculators are
contributing to the rise, it is not the only reason. There IS high
world-wide demand for oil that cannot be ignored. There are world
wide supply disruptions that can't be ignored.
Quoted figures of "inventory" are difficult to interpret because all
"inventories" are specific. A glut of gasoline in one location may be
worthless in another due to transport and formulation issues.
Likewise with crude--different areas supply different chemistries and
some chemistries are much more desirable than others.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Here's what I wanna know: what has the price of oil been in terms of
> > the price of gold
> Let's go 10 years, Jan to Jan on gas. Avg, all grades. From EIA:
> London Gold in US$ from kitco.com. Jan to Jan, 1st day of trading.
> Tracks pretty well, don't it?
But what comes first? Is it the high price of oil and its impact on
inflation and the economy that drives up the price of gold, or is high
gold prices drive up oil prices?
I suggest it's oil price increases that force gold up.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Gasoline at $6/gallon will cripple this country.
It is doubtful gasoline will hit $6/gal or even $5/gal in the near
future under normal conditions (no Mid-East war, hurricane). $4/gal
yes, but not more than that. It's a heck of a big percentage increase
in a very short period of time and demand hasn't increased that
sharply so suddenly, nor as supply been reduced likewise. I submit
prices will level off soon; there's a fair amount of discretionary
driving people can and will cut back on if gasoline is too high.
Now at $4/gal there will be a negative impact on the economy as people
cut driving back. For instance, we can expect pizza delivery to cost
more and fewer people will order that way; so food delivery outlets
will suffer lost business. People also won't go out as much; and
retail and entertainment will suffer, especially those that are a
distant trip. Restaurant owners already report lost business.
Convenience stores may suffer as people plan their shopping needs
better to avoid last minute errands.
Actually, I am more concerned about social unrest and stupid govt
responses. People are addicted to their big fat cars and won't give
them up without a fight. People who live in distant areas and drive
long distances to work or shop in big cars--as so many Americans do
these days--will be very angry and demand something be done. There
are always a few opportunistic sleazy govt leaders who will seek to
cash in on the crisis and propose bad solutions, such as using the
strategic oil reserve, tax reduction, price controls, govt
regulations, etc. to make themselves look good.
I have no love for the oil companies, but unless they are engaged in
price-fixing, collusion or fraud, messing with them will be counter
productive. I'd rather pay $5/gal for gas than not have it at all, or
have to wait hours in line (been there/done that).
I do think it was a mistake to allow Exxon to merge with Mobil. They
were already quite large enough as they were. The old Standard Oil
was broken up for a reason, let's not put it back together.
US 71
Yes, you bought a SUV that gets 12 MPG, but why don't the automakers make a
more fuel efficient version?
Mazda's RX-8 runs best on PREMIUM, which is often 30 cents more than regular
(it also doesn't run on Ethanol)
So why does Premium cost so much more? It only costs *maybe* 5 cents more to
produce.
Yes, it is "our" fault for buying the gas guzzling SUV's & sports cars, but
the oil companies and automakers share that blame for producing these items
in the first place and marketing them as the "must have" item.
I could go on, but I'll step back and see who tries to flame me first ;)
Michael G. Koerner
'HOUSE in the COUNTRY!' type of real estate, due to it being so expensive to
get to and from those areas and a simultaneous bull market for real estate
'closer in', including more and more local zoning battles over these market
demands for more units in close-in higher density developments.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Sherman L. Cahal
> I also can very easily see a total tanking of the market for outer-fringe
> 'HOUSE in the COUNTRY!' type of real estate, due to it being so expensive to
> get to and from those areas and a simultaneous bull market for real estate
> 'closer in', including more and more local zoning battles over these market
> demands for more units in close-in higher density developments.
Already happening.
I'll try to dig up the article, but it made a great comparison between
houses on the fringes of the Baltwash metro were depreciating by up to
40% (more in certain areas), whereas median prices on inner-city
properties and in the downtown core were appreciating substantially.
There was a strong correlation between average commuting times and the
price of houses.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Yes, it is "our" fault for buying the gas guzzling SUV's & sports cars, but
> the oil companies and automakers share that blame for producing these items
> in the first place and marketing them as the "must have" item.
I have no great love for oil companies and automakers, particularly
their selfish lobbying efforts. However, I can not blame them for
their marketing.
Most motorists who drive SUVs today have no need for them at all.
They want them for prestige, to feel good about themselves, compensate
for small human-body parts, bragging rights, or a perceived level of
safety. Most of them with families could do fine with a much more
efficient full sized sedan, station wagon, or mini-van. When the kids
get older and want their own car, the sub-compacts, equivalent to the
old VW Beetle, are good enough. But parents give their kids bigger
cars or even SUVs.
The economic cycle of alternating good and bad times is a fact of
life. In the U.S., we've had a long run of high prosperity for years
allowing us to buy and keep big fat unnecessary inefficient vehicles.
Those days are gone and we must tighten our belts.
Michael G. Koerner
The Atlantic Monthly ran an article a couple of months ago speculating about
today's 'McMansion' developments becoming tomorrow's slums, but that was more
focused on overbuilding due to the mortgage fiasco than on long-term fuel prices.
For example, there is definitely a reason why so many truly *MASSIVE* (and
tall!) residential buildings are under construction in the downtown Chicago
area right now, including one that will be the tallest free-standing structure
in the Western Hemisphere upon its completion, even with the current state of
mortgage lending - with more actively planned.
Rick Powell
Both sites have tracking within the month (I think EIA has weekly
averages, and the kitco gold price site has daily prices with daily
high/low fluctuations). So one of the many corollaries might be if
there is a pattern of which flinches first, oil or gold. I am not
naive enough to believe there is anything close to a 1:1 correlation
here, with so many other externals affecting the price of each.
RP
Rick Powell
I agree with the imagery of a "broad swath of gray", viewed from a
distance, but if you look up close there are many "black and white
dots" that indicate a threshhold, large or small, where a decision is
or isn't made. Each trip taken or not taken, a decision to move
closer to or away from transit-served areas, a decision to buy the big
car or the little car, represents one of those dots. And a trip over
the threshhold, or not. Soon, the shade of gray gets lighter or
darker, depending on the number of dots turning from black to white or
vice versa.
RP
Rick Powell
wrote:
However, this sets another chain reaction in motion. Close-in housing
gets more expensive, making it less affordable. Neighborhoods
gentrify, forcing some people outward. Where do they find housing?
Maybe where prices dropped 40%. Kendall County, IL is the fastest
growing county by percentage in the US from 2000-2007. They have
suddenly had an issue with serving low-income people and families with
social services, which was almost unheard of in the county 10 years
ago.
RP
Rick Powell
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cook County (where Chicago is) was the 3rd largest draining county in
the US as recently as the 2005-2006 Census estimate, losing maybe
20,000 per year according to the estimates. Would've been #2 in
2005-2006 except for Orleans Parish (Katrina effect). Not only has
Cook stopped the slide, they are posting a modest 5,000 per year gain
for the last Census estimate from 2006-2007.
RP
Rick Powell
My group manages state highway access permits for 4 of the 5 IL
counties surrounding the Chicago metro area. I can tell you this with
near $4 gas in that area: residential permits are down, but commercial/
industrial permits are flying in at a high rate, with a few mega-
projects like a railport and a 1 million square foot commercial
development on the burner. With land devaluation going on, suddenly
desirable commercial/industrial corners and parcels are even more
affordable and developable. After several years of this, there will
then be a job base that is nearer these far-flung areas that wasn't
there before. Suddenly, all that devalued housing stock and
residential-zoned land looks like a good investment, and more is
likely to be built.
One thing I've learned is that the boomerang goes both ways when
conditions change, and it often flies to a place where you didn't
expect it to.
RP
Steve Sobol
> I do think it was a mistake to allow Exxon to merge with Mobil. They
> were already quite large enough as they were. The old Standard Oil
> was broken up for a reason, let's not put it back together.
The horse left that particular barn years ago. Consider:
ExxonMobil = Former Standard Oil of New Jersey + Former Standard Oil of New
York (Exxon + Mobil)
BP = Former Atlantic Richfield + Former Standard Oil of Ohio + Former Standard
Oil of Indiana (Arco + Sohio/Boron + Amoco/Standard) and that's in addition to
massive worldwide operations BP already had, pre-merger. This one actually
started in the late 60's/early 70's
ConocoPhillips = Former Conoco + Former Philips + Former Unocal
TexacoChevron = Former Texaco + Former Standard Oil of California
(Texaco + Chevron)
Those are the majors. There are only five big refiners/retailers left
in this country; those four plus Royal Dutch Shell.
necromancer
>Now at $4/gal there will be a negative impact on the economy as people
>cut driving back. For instance, we can expect pizza delivery to cost
>more and fewer people will order that way; so food delivery outlets
>will suffer lost business. People also won't go out as much; and
>retail and entertainment will suffer, especially those that are a
>distant trip. Restaurant owners already report lost business.
The owner of a restaurant I frequent has told me that his business is
way off this year.
>Convenience stores may suffer as people plan their shopping needs
>better to avoid last minute errands.
And there may be some c-stores that might benefit if they are located
in the right place that is within easy walking distance of people's
homes and stock what people need and not junk food and beer.
>Actually, I am more concerned about social unrest and stupid govt
>responses. People are addicted to their big fat cars and won't give
>them up without a fight. People who live in distant areas and drive
>long distances to work or shop in big cars--as so many Americans do
>these days--will be very angry and demand something be done. There
I think that is the key part of the problem: big cars (or more
appropriately, big trucks, since that's what SUV's are).
>are always a few opportunistic sleazy govt leaders who will seek to
>cash in on the crisis and propose bad solutions, such as using the
>strategic oil reserve, tax reduction, price controls, govt
>regulations, etc. to make themselves look good.
Well, shrub still has 271 days left to do something incredibally
stupid to leave for his successor.
>I have no love for the oil companies, but unless they are engaged in
>price-fixing, collusion or fraud, messing with them will be counter
>productive. I'd rather pay $5/gal for gas than not have it at all, or
>have to wait hours in line (been there/done that).
As much as I hate to see it happen, maybe that (or some other form of
rationing) is what is needed.....
>I do think it was a mistake to allow Exxon to merge with Mobil. They
>were already quite large enough as they were.
And Chevron/Texaco and BP/Amoco....
>The old Standard Oil
>was broken up for a reason, let's not put it back together.
Well, they are letting AT&T slowly reformulate also.....
--
"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ..."
--George W. Bush on the prospect of US$4.00 gas
Rich Piehl
Friend of mine in another group lives in Vancouver, BC. It's happened
there big time. The only ones that can afford to live in the city
center are the wealthy. It forcing the low income people to the 'burbs
where there are no jobs.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008
Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
Ad absurdum per aspera
> Nail, head, direct hit! It is capitalism at work.
We are at the end of a lost generation when it comes to improving the
economy of the overall US passenger fleet, after ~15 years of notable
improvement. See for instance
http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r07008.pdf
and
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=1
especially Fig. 1 of the former and page 10 of the latter; and
superimpose an oil price curve like
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_14.pdf
In the mid 80s, instead of a third wave of the energy crisis, we got a
long if lumpy trough in oil prices. That of course is also when the
SUV craze (and its first cousin, the gussied-up half-ton pickup that
is used as a car 99% of the time) took off. In a more nebulous
aspect and after a few years of delay, I also perceive that technical
improvement in passenger cars were often used to give greater size and
power rather than to keep pushing the once promising trend in fuel
economy.
Economical transportation was available throughout (and is much less
of a hairshirt driving experience than in the early-mid 80s) but a lot
of us are, completely volitionally, driving vehicles only a little
better on gas than what we had in 1974. The car makers, under the
free-market imperative to give the market what it wants, were happy to
indulge this (especially since many of those vehicles had large profit
margins). The government intervened fitfully and much less
strenuously than it might have.
Unfortunately coincidental with this fuel-economy backsliding was the
real-estate bubble,
which in many places motivated people to look further and further away
from their workplace in search of better housing (or for that matter
any housing they could afford), which in many situations in the US
means commuting by private car.
And now Adam Smith's invisible hand is smacking us upside the
head.
Whether oil companies will be reined in by the government for fear of
lengthening and deepening the recession is another question; my
(mis)understanding is that they are quite profitable, though the
corner gas station was probably not invited to the party. Although
higher oil prices *will* spur innovation and action on alternatives
and increases in efficiency (not to mention lifestyle changes -- a
resurgent interest in telecommuting would be timely), there is no
doubt in my mind that doubling the fuel cost of transportation is a
rude shock (and at a very bad time) to both individuals and business.
It isn't just individuals -- everybody driving something around in a
truck, or growing or building something through the use of heavy
equipment or chemicals -- is seeing increased costs that have to be
passed along, ultimately to the consumer.
In all of this, the people lower on the economic scale will get hit
first and hardest, and a lot of them were getting by on a pretty thin
margin to start with.
I honestly don't know about the role of commodity speculation in
this. A few years ago (before the present price crisis), an article
in, if memory serves, the Wall Street Journal reported on a study of
the subject. The study concluded that oil prices had floated free of
strict supply-and-demand economics and were driven more immediately by
futures speculation. The article and/or study seemed to nod with
approval at this development, which amounted to oil behaving, at long
last, like other mature commodity markets.
--Joe
Ad absurdum per aspera
Jack May
"John Lansford" <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jqut04plhrg8gqfu6...@4ax.com...
> Rick Powell <rkpo...@ivnet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 22, 6:45 pm, Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-22, Rick Powell <rkpow...@ivnet.com> wrote:
> Everyone was saying that $3/gallon gas would cause people to
> drastically change their driving habits. It didn't happen. Now the
> threshold appears to be when (not if) gas passes $5/gallon.
Longer term it is known that people adapt by buying higher MPG cars.
Shorter term, the effect of higher gas prices don't change what people do by
very much.
Shorter term Government transit agencies even refuse to raise ticket prices
and try to hide the cost. Longer term they will ask for tax increases to
pay for the cost overruns from fuel increases. They may even raise ticket
prices some.
Jack May
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:cd5abac2-2273-4896...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 23, 5:05 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Everyone was saying that $3/gallon gas would cause people to
> drastically change their driving habits. It didn't happen. Now the
> threshold appears to be when (not if) gas passes $5/gallon.
>Third will be tougher changes, such as switching to mass transit or a
car pool if possible. Kids might start riding the school bus again
instead of drving themselves to school. Some discretionary trips will
>be cancelled.
The past data is clear that people don't switch to mass transit or car pools
very much. It is clear that people do buy a lot more higher MPG cars to
adapt.
Jack May
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:516dd796-e5b4-4270...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 7:36 pm, brad2...@msn.com wrote:
> This gentleman at Business Week begs to
> differ:http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_94556...
>
> Pay attention to the $250 billion thrown at oil/gas futures last year,
> compared to $9 billion in 2000. Now are you sure this is about supply
> fundamentals?
>If all the speculators in it just for the money suddenly left the oil
market, how much would the price drop? I would guess perhaps down $20/
bbl. That means we'd still be at $100/bbl, still very expensive.
>Remember, it wasn't long ago we thought $80/bbl was outrageous.
The supply and demand market price of oil without speculation is generally
considered to be about $80/bbl at this time. When the present commodity
speculation bubble bursts, people in the market expect oil to drop to about
the $80 level.
.
Michael D. Adams
> Let's go 10 years, Jan to Jan on gas. Avg, all grades. From EIA:
>
> 1998 1.148 [...]
> 2008 3.159
>
> BTW, last time it was under $2 was a short 3 years ago, in Feb 2005.
>
> London Gold in US$ from kitco.com. Jan to Jan, 1st day of trading.
>
> 1998 285 [...]
> 2008 843
>
> Tracks pretty well, don't it?
If you'd like to see the relationship graphically, see
http://www.triskele.com/2008/04/23/how-much-gas-can-an-ounce-of-gold-buy
Rick Powell
wrote:
Thanks for publishing the graph. If oil was rising faster than gold
as a valuable commodity in US $, you'd expect a diminishing trend -
yet in Jan 2008, an ounce of gold "purchased" the 4th highest amount
of oil of the 11 years examined. I doubt the chart would look much
different as measured in Euros, because exluding exchange rate
considerations, I would assume oil and gold would have the same
relative value in both currencies.
RP
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The owner of a restaurant I frequent has told me that his business is
> way off this year.
Yes, they're getting hit hard. The high cost of food isn't helping
them either, they've been forced to increase menu prices.
> And there may be some c-stores that might benefit if they are located
> in the right place that is within easy walking distance of people's
> homes and stock what people need and not junk food and beer.
I live in a village that has a convenience store roughly within
walking distance (7 blocks). It does a fair amount of walk-in
business from nearby homes and businesses.
However, many convenience stores are on highways and primarily serve
drive in customers. They are generally closer and more convenient
than a supermarket (thus their genre), but they still require a drive.
> I think that is the key part of the problem: big cars (or more
> appropriately, big trucks, since that's what SUV's are).
Weren't SUVs and pickups exempt from govt fuel economy and other
regulations that applied to cars? I think that was a major mistake on
the part of govt to exempt such vehicles, and the automakers did lobby
for that since it saves them big money.
> As much as I hate to see it happen, maybe that (or some other form of
> rationing) is what is needed.....
Rationing is bad, very bad. You cannot subvert the natural forces of
supply and demand. Rationing will create shortages and a black market
where price will still reign supreme. Short of a major disaster, we
don't want rationing.
> Well, they are letting AT&T slowly reformulate also.....
Today's "AT&T" is a far cry from it's old self. The old AT&T which
was left over from the Bell System no longer exists. The company was
bought out by one of the 'baby bells' and then renamed AT&T.
We as a society lost more than we realized when we killed off the old
Bell System. As a motorist, I don't really need a cell phone ($40/
month), but the loss of most pay phones and outrageous toll rates from
those left makes having a cell phone a necessity. [There is a real
payphone in a booth on Busn US 1 that I need to get a picture of
before it's gone.]
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> Friend of mine in another group lives in Vancouver, BC. It's happened
> there big time. The only ones that can afford to live in the city
> center are the wealthy. It forcing the low income people to the 'burbs
> where there are no jobs.
The situation varies from city to city and also from neighborhood to
neighborhood within a city.
But often many US cities have far fewer people in them than in the
past. Philadelphia has 1.4 million down from a peak of 2.1 million.
Some smaller industrial towns have gone from 200,000 to 100,000
people--a 50% loss!
That means there's vacant housing stock or empty land that can be
redeveloped. There are also empty factory buildings suitable for
conversion to office or residential use. However, some city
neighborhoods are not very desirable with crime problems.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The past data is clear that people don't switch to mass transit or car pools
> very much. It is clear that people do buy a lot more higher MPG cars to
> adapt.
Actually ridership on mass transit has been growing significantly of
late, because of high gasoline prices. Where service is provided
people are taking advantage of it to save money.
It would seem to be rather cruel and anti-social to deny people that
option.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The supply and demand market price of oil without speculation is generally
> considered to be about $80/bbl at this time. When the present commodity
> speculation bubble bursts, people in the market expect oil to drop to about
> the $80 level.
Cite?
In any event, it was very recently that $80/bbl was seen as
outrageous.
Rick Powell
The "Casey's" franchises in IA, IL and elsewhere are mostly located in
the center of small towns that otherwise wouldn't have a grocery
store. They have fuel, the usual c-store assortment, a kitchen where
hot foods are made, and an aisle of common items like leather work
gloves, etc. They are often the lifeblood of small towns that would
otherwise lack any commercial activity, and most are walkable as they
are located on the main drag in towns that aren't that big to begin
with.
RP
Rick Powell
Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis - all are far less populated
within their own borders than in their prime. However, their metro
areas are thriving, at least moderately. Most of the large cities
that are growing within their own borders - like Houston, Phoenix, and
Jacksonville - are in the Sun Belt, where there is a lot of greenfield
where old stuff doesn't need to be removed before re-development.
Yep, there's lots of developable land in the inner city, but a lot of
it needs to be cleaned up either environmentally or blight-wise before
it could be considered attractive for residential. And many families
won't be too excited about urban living until crime and education
issues are dealt with. There is a trend in urban areas of knocking
down less desirable housing stock and replacing it with "city
McMansions" which consume more land and effectively de-densify the
area if it is similarly developed.
RP
John Lansford
>On Apr 23, 5:05 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Everyone was saying that $3/gallon gas would cause people to
>> drastically change their driving habits. It didn't happen. Now the
>> threshold appears to be when (not if) gas passes $5/gallon.
>
>"Thresholds" are a broad swath of gray, not a sharp cliff. Consumers
>do not suddenly change their habits, nor do they do so all at once.
That should be obvious; just because the price went from $2.95 to
$3.00/gallon wouldn't trigger a change in behavior.
>First off, consumers will wait to see if the high prices are permanent
>or just a temporary upward spike before they do anything.
>
>Secondly, they will gradually change their habits, doing the easiest
>things first. It is relatively easy to plan driving trips better,
>tires properly inflated, air filters clean, etc. (I suggest if every
>motorist just checked their tires and made them hard we'd save a few
>consumption percentage points right there; I know from myself soft
>tires greatly increases fuel consumption and wrecks the tire.) I
>think as fuel prices keep increasing we'll see consumers making more
>of these relatively easy changes.
>
>Third will be tougher changes, such as switching to mass transit or a
>car pool if possible. Kids might start riding the school bus again
>instead of drving themselves to school. Some discretionary trips will
>be cancelled.
Our school system just announced they had to draw over a million
dollars so far this year out of reserve money to pay for gasoline for
school buses. Emergency/police/fire departments are spending
thousands of dollars more weekly for gasoline than they had budgeted.
These are costs that must be paid by someone.
The steps you're describing for consumers impacts the economy. That
trip to the beach hits the hotels, restaurants and tourist shops that
rely on their business. Buying fewer goods due to higher prices hits
the stores. Eating in instead of eating out hits restaurants, etc,
etc. Construction now costs much more due to higher fuel, asphalt,
and other petroleum costs. Farmers spend more for fertilizer and
fuel, etc.
>
>> For some people there is no "cutting back"; they've already reached
>> the point where they can't cut back any more. If you're one of those
>> people and are the primary wage earner in your family, and barely
>> getting by while gas (and food, and everything else) keeps going up,
>> what do you do?
>
>A fact of life is changing economic times. There are always people
>living right on the margin, and changing times, whatever the reason,
>will hurt them.
>
>But many people do have some discretionary choices;
And they'll make those choices, but for a lot more people than you
think, there are no choices to make because they are unaffordable or
have already been made.
John Lansford, PE
John Lansford
>"Steve Sobol" <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>> That would require people to be unselfish and somewhat intelligent. Just
>> yesterday I was in front of my toddler's day care, about to go in, and there
>> was a guy across the street talking about how he Just Couldn't Give Up His
>> Truck. Looked way too fancy to be a work truck...
>>
>> Many of these people are the same whiners who will complain about gas prices,
>> but... they can't get rid of the 10 MPG gas guzzler? COME ON!!
>
>Although it's probably not the case in the example you mentioned, it's
>probably worth noting that for a few of us, the equation is a bit more
>complicated.
>
>I drive a 10-year-old Cherokee, which gets lousy mileage. I'm not a fan
>of the high gas prices either, and I have considered changing to a more
>efficient vehicle.
>
>However, the fact of the matter is that my Cherokee is mine, free and
>clear. Changing to a more efficient vehicle would require buying
>another vehicle, and that tends to affect the equation quite a bit.
And for a lot of people, that is the crux of the matter; keep spending
more and more money on a less efficient (but paid for) vehicle, or go
into debt for years to get a more efficient one.
>Besides, if one were to buy into the hype of measuring carbon footprints
>and buying carbon offsets, it's also worth keeping in mind that cars
>make their largest impact in carbon consumption at time of manufacture.
>I recently had fun debating a rabid environmentalist over my choice in
>vehicle while in a parking lot by pointing out that my buying a new car
>could be seen as being more damaging to the environment than my getting
>as much out of my guzzler as possible.
Except that vehicle is already built; the carbon cost is already
spent. You're just putting that vehicle into operation; it's not like
they built it specifically for you and wouldn't have done so if you
didn't buy one.
John Lansford
>On Apr 22, 7:00 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Gasoline at $6/gallon will cripple this country.
>
>It is doubtful gasoline will hit $6/gal or even $5/gal in the near
>future under normal conditions (no Mid-East war, hurricane). $4/gal
>yes, but not more than that.
What makes you think it will level off? The author of the article I
gave the link to believes it will be much higher than $4/gallon; hell,
it's starting to get close to that price now around here and it's not
even Memorial Day yet.
> It's a heck of a big percentage increase
>in a very short period of time and demand hasn't increased that
>sharply so suddenly, nor as supply been reduced likewise.
Prices have gone up incredibly fast over the last year; there's a lot
of reasons why this is happening and I don't see any of those
pressures stopping any time soon.
> I submit prices will level off soon; there's a fair amount of discretionary
>driving people can and will cut back on if gasoline is too high.
Based on what? Wild assed guessing? Tarot cards? Show me a cite
from someone who studies the subject saying that prices will level off
near $4/gallon, because I've not seen anyone saying that.
>Actually, I am more concerned about social unrest and stupid govt
>responses. People are addicted to their big fat cars and won't give
>them up without a fight. People who live in distant areas and drive
>long distances to work or shop in big cars--as so many Americans do
>these days--will be very angry and demand something be done. There
>are always a few opportunistic sleazy govt leaders who will seek to
>cash in on the crisis and propose bad solutions, such as using the
>strategic oil reserve, tax reduction, price controls, govt
>regulations, etc. to make themselves look good.
Oh sure; look at McCain's "get rid of the gas tax" proposal, already
being parroted by certain NC governatorial candidates as well.
>I have no love for the oil companies, but unless they are engaged in
>price-fixing, collusion or fraud, messing with them will be counter
>productive. I'd rather pay $5/gal for gas than not have it at all, or
>have to wait hours in line (been there/done that).
>
>I do think it was a mistake to allow Exxon to merge with Mobil. They
>were already quite large enough as they were. The old Standard Oil
>was broken up for a reason, let's not put it back together.
>
I think you're too late on that subject; the oil companies may be
separate entities, but they're all interested in keeping the price as
high as possible.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Shorter term Government transit agencies even refuse to raise ticket prices
> and try to hide the cost. Longer term they will ask for tax increases to
> pay for the cost overruns from fuel increases. They may even raise ticket
> prices some.
The relevance to roads?
Of more concern would be the fuel costs of government agencies at all
levels, from local police cars and garbage trucks, state trooper
vehicles, helicopters, fire trucks and ambulances, road repair trucks,
etc.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >It is doubtful gasoline will hit $6/gal or even $5/gal in the near
> >future under normal conditions (no Mid-East war, hurricane). $4/gal
> >yes, but not more than that.
>
> What makes you think it will level off? The author of the article I
> gave the link to believes it will be much higher than $4/gallon; hell,
> it's starting to get close to that price now around here and it's not
> even Memorial Day yet.
My GUESS for that is because the cited factors contributing to the
increase will level out. Supplies are tight but there is apparently
not a serious shortage. Speculators in the futures market lead to
bubbles that burst.
$4/gallon is a 33% increase in less than a year. That's a hefty chunk
of income.
> > I submit prices will level off soon; there's a fair amount of discretionary
> >driving people can and will cut back on if gasoline is too high.
>
> Based on what? Wild assed guessing? Tarot cards? Show me a cite
> from someone who studies the subject saying that prices will level off
> near $4/gallon, because I've not seen anyone saying that.
C'mon, how many people pay proper attention to their tire pressure and
air filters? Just focusing on those very easy things will cut
gasoline demand a bit.
Society has grown lazy. Proper trip planning, car pooling, etc., is
not that hard or inconvenient and will reduce demand a bit as well.
People have done it in the past.
Many high school kids drive themselves to school; they can take the
school bus.
There will be some reduction in discretionary trips, such as vacation
or social travel, which will hurt businesses in that area.
Some families have a fat car and a lean car; they can make more trips
in the lean car.
Larry G
> On Apr 23, 11:51 am, "US 71" <u...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is "our" fault for buying the gas guzzling SUV's & sports cars, but
> > the oil companies and automakers share that blame for producing these items
> > in the first place and marketing them as the "must have" item.
>
> I have no great love for oil companies and automakers, particularly
> their selfish lobbying efforts. However, I can not blame them for
> their marketing.
>
> Most motorists who drive SUVs today have no need for them at all.
> They want them for prestige, to feel good about themselves, compensate
> for small human-body parts, bragging rights, or a perceived level of
> safety. Most of them with families could do fine with a much more
> efficient full sized sedan, station wagon, or mini-van. When the kids
> get older and want their own car, the sub-compacts, equivalent to the
> old VW Beetle, are good enough. But parents give their kids bigger
> cars or even SUVs.
>
> The economic cycle of alternating good and bad times is a fact of
> life. In the U.S., we've had a long run of high prosperity for years
> allowing us to buy and keep big fat unnecessary inefficient vehicles.
> Those days are gone and we must tighten our belts.
Does anyone think that the US is being treated unfairly on the world
oil market?
Does anyone think that the oil companies treat US consumers
differently than they do consumers in other countries?
I'm a little skeptical on the oil company conspiracy theory...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The steps you're describing for consumers impacts the economy. That
> trip to the beach hits the hotels, restaurants and tourist shops that
> rely on their business. Buying fewer goods due to higher prices hits
> the stores. Eating in instead of eating out hits restaurants, etc,
> etc. Construction now costs much more due to higher fuel, asphalt,
> and other petroleum costs. Farmers spend more for fertilizer and
> fuel, etc.
IMHO, we are definitely in for a solid recession. High fuel prices is
a big contributor for the reasons you stated, but there are other
factors as well. Basically, we've had a boom economy that has burst.
Many people were living beyond their means (thanks, IMHO, to
unscrupulous lenders in mortgages and credit cards) and the bills have
come due.
Other factors, again IMHO, are the US foreign trade deficit, health
care costs, and ongoing decline of domestic manufacturing.
A big factor is food prices, but that should be the subject of a new
thread on ethanol, such as why the heck corn is so expensive? Is
ethanol sucking up every ear of corn grown in this country? Did we
suddenly increase ethanol use?
elaich
de0191...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> I'm surprised we
> haven't heard something from one of the 3 presidential candidates
> yet.
That's predictable. McCain will maintain the status quo, and everyone knows
it.
Democrats are big on government regulation, and that's why neither of them
are saying anything. I predict that if either of the Dems wins, there will
be an immediate push from the Oval Office for government regulation of
petroleum pricing. Both of them know that stating this now will kill any
chance of getting elected.
Rick Powell
I'm in the middle of corn country and I know a few people in the
ethanol business. So here goes.
Ethanol is currently using about 20% of the nation's corn crop. Of
course, last year 25% more acreage was planted in corn than 2006. The
ethanol plant capacity of the US is currently around 9 billion gal/
year, is growing by over 1 billion gal/year capacity, and will hit
around 13 billion gal/year when all the currently planned plants are
built. The replacement of MBTE with ethanol as an oxygenate in fuel,
as well as the increased need to blend stagnant gasoline supplies with
ethanol as an extender, has led to this increased ethanol production
and corn consumption. At around 16 billion gal/year, the US will have
capacity to blend every drop of gasoline in the US to an E-10 blend of
90% gasoline/10% ethanol. But that would require about 40% of the
total crop. Absent any great advances in converting biomass (non-food
crops or the waste portions of food crops, wood chips, etc.) to
ethanol at a reasonable price, I doubt we will ever see more than
15-20 billion gal/year of fuel ethanol produced here. With efficient
biomass production, who knows? 50-60 billion gallons? Not likely to
replace gasoline entirely at those production rates, but with other
alt technologies it could make a lot of difference, especially in
propelling flex-fuel plug-in hybrids.
However, I am concerned if we divert 40% or more of our corn
production to fuel by traditional methods of production. Corn is a
nutrient-sucking crop that is best planted in rotation with other
crops. There will be an environmental as well as a food producing
concern if we keep heading down this path.
RP
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
Given the current situation, that may actually play better than you
think: Being the candidate that 'stands up against the "big oil
companies"' or having the appearance of such may net a few votes.
--
Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
"Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"
>
> And for a lot of people, that is the crux of the matter; keep spending
> more and more money on a less efficient (but paid for) vehicle, or go
> into debt for years to get a more efficient one.
>
And there you have my problem. I can't afford to go in debt for a new or
even late model vehicle, even if I wanted to, which I don't. Right now
I have a 25MPG vehicle that costs me about $400/yr to insure(less if I
paid at the 6 mo interval) in NY. You don't see smaller vehicles on used
lots around here too much, unless they're the poser Bimmer Coopers,
which are way overpriced. I can't see paying $10 000 plus for a used
car-plus insurance which would likely quadruple for full coverage. I'm
seriously looking at a good bike or maybe a scooter for local transport.
I really only drive to shows on a bi-monthly basis, and everywhere I go
is in range of a half tank or less: Montclair trips burn a bit more than
a quarter tank; Asbury/Allentown trips, a half tank. Yonkers and the
City are a quarter tank.
Steve Sobol
> And for a lot of people, that is the crux of the matter; keep spending
> more and more money on a less efficient (but paid for) vehicle, or go
> into debt for years to get a more efficient one.
But I still see plenty of brand-new big vehicles driving around.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
US 71
""Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"" <raash...@ndki.rk> wrote
>
>
> Given the current situation, that may actually play better than you think:
> Being the candidate that 'stands up against the "big oil companies"' or
> having the appearance of such may net a few votes.
>
Wouldn't that be biting the hand that feeds them? Anyone got info as to
who's receiving gas $$ ?
Sherman L. Cahal
You guys should post to Skyscraper City :)
John Lansford
Obama is already running ads in NC about how he would increase
windfall profit taxes on oil companies. Clinton is running ads on how
she would be a President for the citizens, not for corporations and
big oil companies.
John Lansford
Corn is an energy sink; it is easy to turn into fuel but it also
consumes more fuel to do so than you get out of it. There are
alternatives that work far better, but the farmer's lobbyists and the
Midwestern politicians pushed for subsidies to farmers to convert corn
to ethanol. Now we've got skyrocketing food prices, food shortages,
increased land use for farming, increased pollution, and very little
to show for it other than farmers with a little more money in their
pocket.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Democrats are big on government regulation, and that's why neither of them
> are saying anything. I predict that if either of the Dems wins, there will
> be an immediate push from the Oval Office for government regulation of
> petroleum pricing. Both of them know that stating this now will kill any
> chance of getting elected.
Actually, Obama's been running ads on this issue, with him standing in
a gas station talking about high fuel prices. I believe he wants to
tax windfall profits.
As a citizen, I'm very frustrated with both parties today because they
are too extreme. Our society needs _some_ regulation to function
best. The Republicans don't believe in any regulation at all and we
get economic scandals and crashes as a result. The Democrats believe
in tons of regulation and we get recessions as a result.
US 71
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
As a citizen, I'm very frustrated with both parties today because they
are too extreme. Our society needs _some_ regulation to function
best. The Republicans don't believe in any regulation at all and we
get economic scandals and crashes as a result. The Democrats believe
in tons of regulation and we get recessions as a result.
Or you elect GWB and get a recession anyway.
Rich Piehl
Or they talk about regulation and do nothing. These are from two years
ago.
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/Rubberstamp.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008286
Anyone who thinks the Dems are any different than the Reupubs, or said
that things would change once the Dems got the majority in Congress is
only fooling themselves.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008
Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
freew...@bellsouth.net
> "US 71" <u...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >""Schrödinger's Cat Surprise! Jazz Band"" <raashan...@ndki.rk> wrote
>
> >> Given the current situation, that may actually play better than you think:
> >> Being the candidate that 'stands up against the "big oil companies"' or
> >> having the appearance of such may net a few votes.
>
> >Wouldn't that be biting the hand that feeds them? Anyone got info as to
> >who's receiving gas $$ ?
>
> Obama is already running ads in NC about how he would increase
> windfall profit taxes on oil companies. Clinton is running ads on how
> she would be a President for the citizens, not for corporations and
> big oil companies.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Woodhttp://wood.jlansford.net/
What profits? The Oil Companies profits are based on volume. The
Government (Federal and state) make more money per gallon of gas sold
than the oil companies do, and it's not even close.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/05/gasoline-taxes.html
And I've heard/read this from other sources besides this onel.
For what it's worth, Obama is also the genius who wants to raise
(nearly double) Capital Gains taxes because a few Hedge Fund managers
make Billions of dollars. That's real smart, lets raise capital gains
on 100 million+ investors to penalize a hundred or so people. You
think the economy is bad now? pray he doesn't get elected.
Sorry for the brief OT rant.
I'm not 100% convinced the oil companies are evil and solely to blame,
nor that Bush is totally evil/incompetent and solely to blame for $4 a
gallon gas either. I think it's a combination of speculation/greed,
which has been mentioned in other posts as well as the worldwide
demand from China, India and other emerging markets. I think it's
naive to point the finger at one entity and blame them for $4 a gallon
gas.
The problem is that the people running for president, which are
supposed to be the best America has to offer (that went out the window
a long time ago) have not presented any tangible solutions other than
say the phrase "we need to find other sources" and to slap Big Oil on
the wrist in the form of higher taxes, which is designed to make most
of the general, wealth envious public, happy.
High gas & food prices, the home mortgage/lending crisis, the looming
credit card debt crisis (BusinessWeek called this one a few months
ago), a highly socially divisive presidential election, continuing
illegal immigration...this is not a pretty picture.
My 4 Cents (inflation)
Jim K. Georges
Michael G. Koerner
I do.
;-)
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> Or they talk about regulation and do nothing. These are from two years
> ago. . . .
> Anyone who thinks the Dems are any different than the Reupubs, or said
> that things would change once the Dems got the majority in Congress is
> only fooling themselves.
Congress may pass laws, but the Administration is the one that
executes them. The Administration decides how much or how little to
enforce various laws. And if the Adm vetoes a law, there is no law at
all.
Cabinet heads have a lot of discretionary power on regulatory
enforcement. For instance, it's not up to Congress to bring anti-
trust actions, it's up to the Attorney General. How strict and
demanding the SEC, FDIC, etc., are in enforcing financial regulations
is up to the heads. In addition, agencies can write their own
regulations independently of Congress within a general law.
I strongly suspect Obama would bring in an activist administration,
with cabinet heads anxious to regulate. We need more controls than we
have today, but going too far is just as bad as not doing enough.
Creating excessive regulation leads to chaos.
Michael G. Koerner
> On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, elaich <x...@y.z> wrote:
>
>> Democrats are big on government regulation, and that's why neither of them
>> are saying anything. I predict that if either of the Dems wins, there will
>> be an immediate push from the Oval Office for government regulation of
>> petroleum pricing. Both of them know that stating this now will kill any
>> chance of getting elected.
>
> Actually, Obama's been running ads on this issue, with him standing in
> a gas station talking about high fuel prices. I believe he wants to
> tax windfall profits.
And they always neglect to say that corporations *NEVER*, *EVER* pay taxes -
PEOPLE pay taxes. As was found out during the Carter malaise, such taxes are
simply passed along in the form of higher prices and/or lower dividends in
your 401/K plans.
And as for 'excessive' profits - as a percentage of sales, oil companies are
in the middle, to slightly below middle, of the pack of all publicly traded
corporate sectors. Their raw 'profit' numbers are very high simply due to
their astounding sales VOLUME. For 'percentage of sales' profit, check
pharmaceuticals, banks and insurance companies for comparison.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> For what it's worth, Obama is also the genius who wants to raise
> (nearly double) Capital Gains taxes because a few Hedge Fund managers
> make Billions of dollars. That's real smart, lets raise capital gains
> on 100 million+ investors to penalize a hundred or so people. You
> think the economy is bad now? pray he doesn't get elected.
> Sorry for the brief OT rant.
I must respond to that. One problem with the low capital gains tax is
that people of modest means or the elderly, who can only put their
savings in bank CDs (don't have enough money or time to risk stock),
must pay full taxes yearly on the interest, even if the CD is multi-
year and isn't touched. People earning money from stock appreciation
don't have to pay any tax until the stock is hold, and then pay at a
lower rate. So, they get the advantage of deferring their tax
obligation and a lower rate to boot. (In addition, in the long run
stocks do better than bank CDs but a small saver can't afford the risk
since a decline would wipe out everything he has.)
> The problem is that the people running for president, which are
> supposed to be the best America has to offer (that went out the window
> a long time ago) have not presented any tangible solutions other than
> say the phrase "we need to find other sources" and to slap Big Oil on
> the wrist in the form of higher taxes, which is designed to make most
> of the general, wealth envious public, happy.
Unfortunately, in recent years US wealth seems to have become more
concentrated in fewer hands. The wage ratio from the to the top has
significantly increased. Many working people have seen their total
compensation flat or even reduced. Lots of people who had full
benefits and job security were outsourced and became strictly hourly
laborers with zero benefits. It used to be when a company laid people
off it was a sign of trouble and the stock fell. Today layoffs are
deemed great and stock goes up.
The fact is that gasoline is a basic commodity everyone needs. When
the price jumps as it has, it hurts working people
freew...@bellsouth.net
> On Apr 24, 10:27 am, freeway...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, Obama is also the genius who wants to raise
> > (nearly double) Capital Gains taxes because a few Hedge Fund managers
> > make Billions of dollars. That's real smart, lets raise capital gains
> > on 100 million+ investors to penalize a hundred or so people. You
> > think the economy is bad now? pray he doesn't get elected.
> > Sorry for the brief OT rant.
>
> I must respond to that. One problem with the low capital gains tax is
> that people of modest means or the elderly, who can only put their
> savings in bank CDs (don't have enough money or time to risk stock),
> must pay full taxes yearly on the interest, even if the CD is multi-
> year and isn't touched. People earning money from stock appreciation
> don't have to pay any tax until the stock is hold, and then pay at a
> lower rate. So, they get the advantage of deferring their tax
> obligation and a lower rate to boot. (In addition, in the long run
> stocks do better than bank CDs but a small saver can't afford the risk
> since a decline would wipe out everything he has.)
I'm not saying there's not any room for change or improvement with
reagrds to Capital Gains but do you really buy Obama's suggestion as
sound business?
And how is what you stated a "problem" with low capital gains taxes?
it sound like more of a problem with bank CD's. Simple solution,
adjust the taxes and rules regarding Bank CD's to have it mirror the
level of Capital Gains taxes. Don't you think It is really stupid of
our government to tax/penalize people who save money and don't use it?
> > The problem is that the people running for president, which are
> > supposed to be the best America has to offer (that went out the window
> > a long time ago) have not presented any tangible solutions other than
> > say the phrase "we need to find other sources" and to slap Big Oil on
> > the wrist in the form of higher taxes, which is designed to make most
> > of the general, wealth envious public, happy.
>
> Unfortunately, in recent years US wealth seems to have become more
> concentrated in fewer hands. The wage ratio from the to the top has
> significantly increased. Many working people have seen their total
> compensation flat or even reduced. Lots of people who had full
> benefits and job security were outsourced and became strictly hourly
> laborers with zero benefits. It used to be when a company laid people
> off it was a sign of trouble and the stock fell. Today layoffs are
> deemed great and stock goes up.
>
> The fact is that gasoline is a basic commodity everyone needs. When
> the price jumps as it has, it hurts working people
I agree with everything you said above, my point about the "wealth
envy" crowd, and they've been around long before gas prices hit $1.50
a gallon, is that they expect Big Government to cure all their
problems by taking those who are doing well and taxing the heck out of
them, as if that will improve their own situation, which it doesn't.
However elected officials (and those trying to be) are all too happy
to do that because it makes the look like they "care about the little
guy" and they can brag that they did something, even if there are no
measurable results to show for it.
Jim K. Georges
Rich Piehl
But without Congress passing them they wouldn't be in place in the first
place.
Or is what your saying that all the posturing that Pelosi did in 2006
and all the salvations that she promised meaningless because everything
falls in the hands of the administration?
freew...@bellsouth.net
It is me or is this discussion more civil and insightful without
Pigsty Randy around?
Just wondering.
Jim K. Georges
Laurence Sheldon
> It is me or is this discussion more civil and insightful without
> Pigsty Randy around?
The more trolls and troll-feeders filtered, the better it gets.
> Just wondering.
And it just got a little better.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'm not saying there's not any room for change or improvement with
> reagrds to Capital Gains but do you really buy Obama's suggestion as
> sound business?
You are correct that Obama will be no friend of business.
Frankly, I think we average citizens lose either way. Under the
Republicans we've had the mortgage crisis, Bear Sterns, airline
pension fund failures, etc., which the citizen ends up paying for in
taxes or lost commerce. Under the Democrats we will have suffocating
onerous regulation and taxation that will depress commerce.
Back in Reagan's day the business community said "remove the onerous
regulations and watch business soar, and a rising tide will lift all
boats". They removed the regulations and business soared, but how
much trickled down is very debatable.
> And how is what you stated a "problem" with low capital gains taxes?
> it sound like more of a problem with bank CD's. Simple solution,
> adjust the taxes and rules regarding Bank CD's to have it mirror the
> level of Capital Gains taxes. Don't you think It is really stupid of
> our government to tax/penalize people who save money and don't use it?
Your solution is correct. But I seem to remember that dividends were
less taxable (maybe a portion were exempt?) now dividends are fully
taxable. That is to say, I don't seem them following your solution
but going in the opposite direction.
Yes it is very stupid to penalize savers because after all savers
provide capital necessary for investment. Bank CDs are loaned for
people to get mortgages, new construction, etc.
> I agree with everything you said above, my point about the "wealth
> envy" crowd, and they've been around long before gas prices hit $1.50
> a gallon, is that they expect Big Government to cure all their
> problems by taking those who are doing well and taxing the heck out of
> them, as if that will improve their own situation, which it doesn't.
That is true. Big Govt can not cure all problems. The Dems think
throwing money and a govt program at a problem will cure it. Newsweek
did a piece on Michelle Obama's beliefs. Troubling.
> However elected officials (and those trying to be) are all too happy
> to do that because it makes the look like they "care about the little
> guy" and they can brag that they did something, even if there are no
> measurable results to show for it.
Yep.
freew...@bellsouth.net
> On Apr 24, 1:20 pm, freeway...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying there's not any room for change or improvement with
> > reagrds to Capital Gains but do you really buy Obama's suggestion as
> > sound business?
>
> You are correct that Obama will be no friend of business.
>
> Frankly, I think we average citizens lose either way. Under the
> Republicans we've had the mortgage crisis,
I hope you aren't blaming the mortgage crisis on the Republicans. Did
they make people sign bad contracts, did they keep people from reading
and understanding what they signed and best yet, did they tell people
to go an a full blown "status trip" and buy more house than they could
really afford? It's a coincidence that the mortgage crisis happened
with a Republican administration, not a reason.
Now I will agree the lack of regulations made these bad mortgages
readily available to people who should not have them but ultimately, I
blame the person who put pen to paper without fully understanding what
they can afford before even looking at what kind of home to buy.
Bear Sterns, airline
> pension fund failures, etc., which the citizen ends up paying for in
> taxes or lost commerce. Under the Democrats we will have suffocating
> onerous regulation and taxation that will depress commerce.
In a bigger way than ever before I'm afraid.
>
> Back in Reagan's day the business community said "remove the onerous
> regulations and watch business soar, and a rising tide will lift all
> boats". They removed the regulations and business soared, but how
> much trickled down is very debatable.
>
> > And how is what you stated a "problem" with low capital gains taxes?
> > it sound like more of a problem with bank CD's. Simple solution,
> > adjust the taxes and rules regarding Bank CD's to have it mirror the
> > level of Capital Gains taxes. Don't you think It is really stupid of
> > our government to tax/penalize people who save money and don't use it?
>
> Your solution is correct. But I seem to remember that dividends were
> less taxable (maybe a portion were exempt?) now dividends are fully
> taxable. That is to say, I don't seem them following your solution
> but going in the opposite direction.
>
> Yes it is very stupid to penalize savers because after all savers
> provide capital necessary for investment. Bank CDs are loaned for
> people to get mortgages, new construction, etc.
>
> > I agree with everything you said above, my point about the "wealth
> > envy" crowd, and they've been around long before gas prices hit $1.50
> > a gallon, is that they expect Big Government to cure all their
> > problems by taking those who are doing well and taxing the heck out of
> > them, as if that will improve their own situation, which it doesn't.
>
> That is true. Big Govt can not cure all problems. The Dems think
> throwing money and a govt program at a problem will cure it. Newsweek
> did a piece on Michelle Obama's beliefs. Troubling.
You mean beside the fact she doesn't like America? I need to check
that out.
>
> > However elected officials (and those trying to be) are all too happy
> > to do that because it makes the look like they "care about the little
> > guy" and they can brag that they did something, even if there are no
> > measurable results to show for it.
>
> Yep.
We're screwed anyway you slice it.
Jim K. Georges
Larry G
why is it wrong to tax Capital Gains but not wrong to tax gasoline?
bonus question: does NOT taxing Capital Gains guarantee that the
capital will stay in this country and be used to produce jobs in this
country?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> The Government (Federal and state) make more money per gallon of gas sold
> than the oil companies do, and it's not even close.
That is a line that is heard on some talk radio programs, calling it
"profit", but they ignore the fact that it is a tax for funding the
maintenance and construction of the infrastructure.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Scott M. Kozel
>
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Of more concern would be the fuel costs of government agencies at all
> > levels, from local police cars and garbage trucks, state trooper
> > vehicles, helicopters, fire trucks and ambulances, road repair trucks, etc.
>
> It is me or is this discussion more civil and insightful without
> Pigsty Randy around?
There is far less personal abuse.
freew...@bellsouth.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never said it was wrong to tax Capital Gains, The point, in case you
missed it was that if Obama were elected he would roll it back to 28%
(nearly double the 15% it is now), that, IMHO is wrong and it would be
a bad move as far as the economy goes. I never stated anywhere that
Capital Gains should not be taxed.
Jim K. Georges
Larry G
yup..I probably DID miss that...
I was more focused on why we think lower taxes on Capital Gains is the
only factor that keeps capital in this country rather than going over-
seas anyhow...
If you can make a bunch of money in another country and even after
paying high taxes you still end up very well off...
whereas you could go to a country with low or zero capital gains taxes
and lose your butt on investments...
so .. I'm not sure that taxes are the only thing that affects where
capital goes..or stays...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Corn is an energy sink; it is easy to turn into fuel but it also
> consumes more fuel to do so than you get out of it. There are
> alternatives that work far better, but the farmer's lobbyists and the
> Midwestern politicians pushed for subsidies to farmers to convert corn
> to ethanol. Now we've got skyrocketing food prices, food shortages,
> increased land use for farming, increased pollution, and very little
> to show for it other than farmers with a little more money in their
> pocket.
ABC News reported on this tonight. But they said if they stopped
using ethanol gasoline would go up 15% (eg 45c a gallon).
What puzzles me is how did the U.S. go from a agricultural surplus to
shortage so quickly? Weren't we using ethanol in fuel for the last
few years to replace the MTBE (sp?) ?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> they make people sign bad contracts, did they keep people from reading
> and understanding what they signed and best yet, did they tell people
> to go an a full blown "status trip" and buy more house than they could
> really afford? It's a coincidence that the mortgage crisis happened
> with a Republican administration, not a reason.
> Now I will agree the lack of regulations made these bad mortgages
> readily available to people who should not have them but ultimately, I
> blame the person who put pen to paper without fully understanding what
> they can afford before even looking at what kind of home to buy.
Yes, I do put much of the blame on Repubs. We have guardrails on
highways to protect motorists against their own errors. Likewise, we
have regulations to protect consumers. In this situation, many low-
income people, who aren't the best educated or financially skilled,
got roped in to ridiculous mortgages it was obvious they couldn't
afford or even figure out. We used to have usury and fair credit
laws; no more. There are known old tricks companies pull on
consumers, and companies are pulling them big time.
Protecting consumers against this mortgage fraud would not have hurt
the economy. Some people who got rich would not have, but that's ok.
freew...@bellsouth.net
We can agree to disagree on that one then.
I'm OK with unscrupulous lenders being punished, and I am all for
coming down hard on scammers of any sort but I just don't see this as
a Republican shortcoming.
Gaurdrails have a purpose but when a car really wants to go through
one it will, nothing is without risk, unfortunatly some people are not
good at assessing or managing risk, the Government can't save us all
from ourselves.
Jim K. Georges
Rick Powell
MBTE is still allowed in several states, so it is a slow weaning off
of it. Here in IL, I don't think I have purchased a drop of "pure"
gasoline in 15 years - it's hard to find other than E10 here. Further
from corn country, E10 is more rare - but apparently taking over more
market share every year outside the midwest. And I wouldn't say we
have a food shortage just yet...every year we are yielding more crop
than ever before, with better seed hybrids, planting and harvesting
techniques, etc.
RP
John Lansford
The farmers are getting subsidized to grow corn, but not for food, for
fuel. They are abandoning wheat and other grains in favor of corn for
ethanol to get the money, and to reap the profits from the higher
prices. Meanwhile, dairy, beef and baked goods shoot up in price due
to lack of corn and other grains for their use.
It's a decision that wasn't thought all the way through when Bush
decreed that we could grow our own fuel.
Michael D. Adams
> On Apr 24, 10:53 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Yes, I do put much of the blame on Repubs. We have guardrails on
> > highways to protect motorists against their own errors. Likewise, we
> > have regulations to protect consumers. In this situation, many low-
> > income people, who aren't the best educated or financially skilled,
> > got roped in to ridiculous mortgages it was obvious they couldn't
> > afford or even figure out. We used to have usury and fair credit
> > laws; no more. There are known old tricks companies pull on
> > consumers, and companies are pulling them big time.
[...]
> I'm OK with unscrupulous lenders being punished, and I am all for
> coming down hard on scammers of any sort but I just don't see this as
> a Republican shortcoming.
Even though I shy away from partisan-bashing (I'm an equal-opportunity
basher when it comes to politics)... I think that a share of the blame
could be allocated to the GOP. If "something" could be done to have
fended off the current financial woes, the GOP has had ample opportunity
to do so.
Whether the Democrats would have done any better is a debatable point.
However, part of the blame also ought to go towards politicians in
general, in the sense that the current objectives of politicians of
acquiring power, maintaining power, building campaign war chests to help
win elections...well, they all fail to provide politicians with any
incentive to think beyond the next election or two, or to consider
long-range impacts of potentially troubling trends *especially* if
reacting to those trends would adversely impact constituents or campaign
financiers.
And, part of the blame rests on Americans in general. Yes, a case can
be made that government ought restrain stupidity when the effects of
that stupidity will have a sufficiently adverse impact on society in
general. But the fact remains that many people made bad decisions.
True, some of them may have been duped, but many people simply failed to
think through the potential consequences of their decisions, and the
potential risks they were facing as a result of their choices.
So, to bring this back to a roads-analogy, the GOP probably deserves
some flak for having control and failing to put up guardrails on their
watch. Such blame shouldn't also exclude the chance that the guardrails
would be too flimsy for the job, and that Americans need to take
responsibility for taking their drivers ed classes and retaining the
knowledge from those classes.
--
Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>> much snipped
>
>I never said it was wrong to tax Capital Gains, The point, in case you
>missed it was that if Obama were elected he would roll it back to 28%
>(nearly double the 15% it is now), that, IMHO is wrong and it would be
>a bad move as far as the economy goes. I never stated anywhere that
>Capital Gains should not be taxed.
Capital gains in some cases may be an illusion because of inflation.
That is in part the theory for exempting residences from capital gains
taxation for at least part of the appreciation. This also is at least
in part the reason for treating short and long term gains differently.
Determining what is income and what is "true" income is a fine art for
the accounting theologians of varying stripes.
>
>Jim K. Georges
Clark Morris
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It's a decision that wasn't thought all the way through when Bush
> decreed that we could grow our own fuel.
That's for sure. A while back everyone on this newsgroup gave many
reasons on how ethanol would be bad. They were right.
Clark F Morris
Archer Daniels Midland made sure that this idea had and has great
bi-partisan support. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been
derisive about this subsidy.
>
>John Lansford, PE
Clark F Morris
<mda-u...@triskele.com> wrote:
>"freew...@bellsouth.net" <freew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> much snipped
From what I have read, both parties have their hands deeply involved
in this mess. Both parties wanted home ownership extended. I suspect
that some congressmen and senators have as much control of parts of
the bureaucracy as the cabinet officer responsible for the department
involved. This mess has all the earmarks of ill thought pushes from
various parts of the ideological and political spectra.
Clark Morris
Rick Powell
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't buy the reasoning for some of this. Ethanol is a water/
petroleum/fertilizer intensive product when extracted from corn, but
there are many byproducts that are, or should be, extracted from the
process that provide solutions to the above issues. Distiller's
grain, which can be used for livestock feed, is but one byproduct from
the process.
Here's a link, obviously from a pro-ethanol site:
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/06/ethanol-byproducts-pelletized.html
RP
John Lansford
>I don't buy the reasoning for some of this. Ethanol is a water/
>petroleum/fertilizer intensive product when extracted from corn, but
>there are many byproducts that are, or should be, extracted from the
>process that provide solutions to the above issues. Distiller's
>grain, which can be used for livestock feed, is but one byproduct from
>the process.
>
>Here's a link, obviously from a pro-ethanol site:
>
>http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/06/ethanol-byproducts-pelletized.html
>
That's a research project, not commercialized, and there are still
problems with it according to the article. I'm sure the pro-ethanol
crowd is desperately trying to find practical uses for the ethanol
byproducts, but so far what I've heard is the only use it has is for
compost. There are even reports that the byproducts are just being
dumped in nearby streams and rivers to get rid of it.
Ad absurdum per aspera
more angles:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/greene.html
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0804/gallery.most_profitable.fortune/index.html
--Joe
1100GS_rider
> Yes, I do put much of the blame on Repubs. We have guardrails on
> highways to protect motorists against their own errors. Likewise, we
> have regulations to protect consumers. In this situation, many low-
> income people, who aren't the best educated or financially skilled,
> got roped in to ridiculous mortgages it was obvious they couldn't
> afford or even figure out.
It was the Dems who kept yelling about red-lining and how the big evil
banks wouldn't give mortgages to people in poor neighborhoods just
because they had a bad credit history.
Free Lunch
bmw1...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote in
<1ig2sc6.17wyl6gn7bk00N%bmw1...@hotmail.com>:
This had nothing to do with racism or redlining. It had to do with a
mortgage marketing system that allowed sales people to write up false
applications and get their customers to sign it. Don't make excuses for
the greed of big business.
elaich
news:bamv04lr6fvv7hfhc...@4ax.com:
> And they'll make those choices, but for a lot more people than you
> think, there are no choices to make because they are unaffordable or
> have already been made.
And, it WILL hit critical mass. At what point do factories close because
the employees can no longer afford to drive to work? When will trucking
companies face bankrupcy becase of the price of fuel? When do people stop
shopping at high end stores because they can no longer afford the prices?
The prices are rising all the time because of transport costs. When these
stores and outlets begin to close, what will the impact be?
Some people like to compare the cost of our (cheap) petroleum, but they
always compare them to the cost of petroleum in tiny European countries
who have had high fuel costs for decades, and whom have other means of
transit in ready access.
We have huge distances in the US, and factors that those European
countries have never had to face. People who have repeatedly stated that
"you will adjust" have not considered that prices in the US economy are
all rising at a staggering rate, but that wages are not rising at all.
When will the petroleum prices rise to the point that illegal immigrants
cannot afford to work here? That alone would result in the crash of
California's economy. That alone would result in a near failure of the US
government and a certain depression.
Maybe it's out of our control, and it's fated to happen. But how can
Chevron profit from such a disaster? If people can't afford to drive,
Chevron is history. Surely someone inside Chevron is intelligent enough
to realize this?
As it has been stated repeatedly, this is not supply and demand. It's
fueled by speculation. I have been on record many times that speculation
in petroleum futures should be illegal. Now we are reaping what has been
sowed.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Some people like to compare the cost of our (cheap) petroleum, but they
> always compare them to the cost of petroleum in tiny European countries
> who have had high fuel costs for decades, and whom have other means of
> transit in ready access.
Those European countries' petroleum is no more expensive than that in
the U.S. Their motor fuel is much more expensive because the end
product is loaded with much higher taxes.